Rafael Sebba, Land Management,
explained that this ordinance consists of both legislative and housekeeping
amendments to Lane Code Chapters 13, 14 and 16. He stated the legislative amendments will update Lane Code to be
consistent with changes to the Oregon Revised Statutes and Administrative Rules
enacted between 2003 and 2009. He
reported that the Lane County Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on March
2, 2010 for the legislative amendments and recommended adoption. He indicated the housekeeping amendments involved clarification and
updates that are minor and do not involve changes in County policy. He noted on May 18, 2010, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing
for the housekeeping amendments and recommended Board approval. He indicated staff thought it would be more efficient to combine the
legislative and housekeeping amendments into one ordinance for Board
consideration. He noted on July 29,
2010 notice was published in The Register Guard and notice was sent to
interested agencies. He added that a
Ballot Measure 56 notice was sent to owners of rural industrial properties
within the Coast Fork and Middle Fork Willamette Watersheds to notify the
property owners of the proposed legislative amendments that will no longer allow
new wrecking yards in the Rural Industrial Zones. He noted the First Reading was on August 3, 2010.
He added that one comment has been received regarding the wrecking yard
issue.

Fleenor explained that the decision
before the Board on the ordinance is subject to code amendments and criteria
sited in the agenda cover memo and attachments. He said that evidence and testimony must be directed toward the approval
criteria. He said this is an
opportunity for those present to enter information into the record. Only persons who qualify as a party may appeal the Boardís decision to
LUBA. He asked if there were any ex
parte contacts.

There were none.

Stephanie Schulz, Land Management,
reported that the supplemental memo responding to commissionersí requests at
the First Reading was distributed last Friday. She said in responding to Dwyerís request, they provided the new
private use Airport Overlay Zone classification in Lane Code in which the Board
adopted in 2008, LC 16.296. She
noted that five private use airports in Lane County (including the airport
northwest of Veneta) are recognized in this section of the code. She said additional information was also provided in a supplemental memo
in response to Handyís request regarding the issues listed by the Planning
Commission for staff to highlight for the Boardís consideration. She said the Planning Commissionersí concerns were the definition of
biomass, lack of language clarity, the newly created Oregon statute and the new
opportunities that allow for biofuel production by local farmers in both EFU
Zones, Exclusive Farm Use, and Marginal Lands Zones in the County. She noted that no specific direction was given to staff on language for
that item. She said in closing the
discussion the Planning Commission felt the farm community had thoroughly vetted
these issues at the state level. She
added the Planning Commission also directed staff to provide specific source
documentation for a new tax assessment that were not available when lot
divisions include open space dedication. She
said the ORS 308(a) source document was presented in the first packet.

Fleenor explained that any decision
regarding this ordinance is subject to the code amendment criteria sited in the
agenda cover memo and attachments. Any
evidence and testimony must be directed toward the approval criteria. He said this is an opportunity for those present to enter information
into the record. He said only
persons who qualify as a party may appeal the Boardís decision to LUBA. He asked if there were any ex parte contacts with the Board of
Commissioners.

There were none.

Schulz recalled on October 20, 2009
the Board held a Fifth Reading on
the concurrent Metro Plan and Public Facilities and Plan Amendment to update the
city of Springfieldís project list and tables of significant stormwater
facilities. She recalled at the
Fifth Reading some of the Board members expressed concerns that the recent
addendum did not adequately address concerns for protecting downstream property
owners and specific citizens
involved in previous discussions had not had the opportunity to review the
adopted policy amendment. She noted
on November 4, 2009, the Board held a Sixth Reading to allow review of packet
material missing from the previous session and to hear input from County staff. She noted at that meeting
staff
expressed some of the complexities of
inserting ďno net increaseĒ language into Springfieldís Stormwater
Management Plan and the difficulties of implementing such policies at the County
level. She said on February 3, 2010
the Board held a Seventh Reading. She
recalled the Springfield City Council had passed two revised ordinances to adopt
the stormwater projects within the city and leave off projects shown on the
Springfield PFSF maps in the UGB areas. She
said the city structured their ordinances to approve only the projects within
the city limits unless the Board adopts County Ordinance PA 1260, in which case
the city action would be superseded by the County ordinance. She indicated that city staff expressed concern at that time that
property owners outside of the city limits may face an increased risk of
flooding if the County chooses not to adopt the proposed amendment because the
projects located outside of the city limits as listed in the current Public
Facilities and Services Plan are deemed inadequate. She said since the Seventh Reading on July 19, 2010, Springfield City
Council held a Public Hearing and a revised Addendum 1 was adopted by the city
council following the conclusion of the hearing. She said the amendment was developed in consultation of several
downstream property owners who have all expressed their support of the amendment
to the city council. She indicated a
copy of the amendment entitled ďStormwater Management Plan Addendum 1Ē is
enclosed in the packet. She reported
the city of Springfield believes they have addressed the concerns within its
control that were raised by the Board of Commissioners during the prior readings
of the proposed ordinance. She said
the city is requesting the Board proceed with Ordinance PA 1260. She
stated the County staff has reviewed the Public Facilities and Plan Amendment
and are supportive of co-adoption by the Board. She indicated the amendment contains multiple flood control projects that
would protect County residents from existing flooding and risks. She said the project list contains multiple water quality projects that
would improve existing water quality deficiencies. She added that staff is also supportive of the cityís recent addendum
to their recent stormwater management plan. She said although the Board has expressed to desire more stringent
stormwater management policies throughout the County, staff feels this is beyond
the scope of Springfieldís Public Facilities and Services Plan ordinance
before the Board today. She
indicated that County staff will be returning to the Board on August 25 for a
work session for developing and funding stormwater objectives of the Board. She said should the Board defer their decision on this ordinance until
after the work session or further time is needed, the city has voiced that they
would be amenable to rolling this
matter forward to a Ninth Reading in February, 2011.

Commissioner Fleenor opened the
Public Hearing. There being no one
signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.

Dwyer commented that the addendum
goes a long way to allay his concerns about dumping water on someoneís
property. He said their concern was
about people outside of the city. He
was prepared to act on this.

MOTION: to approve an Eighth
Reading and Setting a Ninth Reading, keeping the record open until September 1,
2010 at 1:30 p.m. for Ordinance PA 1260.

Handy MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

c. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 10-8-18-9/In
the Matter of Legalizing a Portion of Hamm Road (County Road Number 715 1/2),
Located in Sections 15 and 16, Township 19 South, Range 4 West of the Willamette
Meridian and Adopting Findings of Fact (19-04-15 & 16) (NBA & PM
7/17/10).

Mike Jackson, Land Management,
recalled the Board had a Public Hearing on July 14, 2010 for the proposed
legalization of a portion of Hamm Road. He
said the Board asked for them to report back with answers to questions they had.
He said since the July 14 Public Hearing, they have contacted the five
citizens that came to the Public Hearing. He
indicated they have sent them maps of the legal alignment and the as traveled
alignment. He said they have also
received updates of todayís meeting. He
said they have not received any objections to the legalization, although they
have received objections to any kind of construction. He commented that was the common theme, they didnít want the curves
made safer. He stated that this is a
hearing for the legalization and they are trying to show the intent of one road.

Bill Morgan, Public Works, recalled
a question asked was about the history of roadway improvement. He said the road is a rural major collector from Territorial to Creswell
and Highway 99. He said they started
improving it in the 90ís and sections closer to Territorial received
modernization. He indicated this
1.2 mile section was never approved because of funding. He added that because of all the curves in the road it is very costly.
He reviewed the CIP the Board approves every year and there is no mention
of this road being widened for capitalization either in the approved financially
constrained list or the future projects list. He said it is clear to say that what they are doing is applying their
preventative maintenance program, the same program on all 1,400 miles of roads
in their system where they try to perform maintenance so they donít fall apart
and they donít have costlier repairs in the future. He added this road is ready for an overlay.
He said they have done chip seals in the past, but it is not going to
provide the structural depth they need. He
indicated they went through the record when they started looking at this overlay
project. He said there is evidence
in the packet that they met with property owners because in order to do any
substantial curve widening there are environmental issues and right-of-way
acquisition issues. He said when
they met with the neighbors they determined it wasnít in the best interest to
proceed with the major curve widening. He
said they wrote back to them in December to let the neighbors know they are
doing the typical preservation maintenance within the existing right-of-way. He added at that time they didnít know about the legalization issues.
He said with regard to no new trucks, they went back into archives looking for information and they went back
to 1967 and at that time it was closed to log trucks. He thought in 1967 the road was all gravel and in 1972 it was removed and
replaced in 1973. He said they do
not find anything else had been done since 1980. He thought as the section of roadway of Territorial to Creswell was
improved, that the no through truck signs were removed.

Morgan said if the Board is
interested in further pursuing restrictions on no through trucks, it is
specified in ORS 818.040 and there are recommendations. He said they discussed the speed limits and provided information from
ODOT about how there is an exact process to establish speeds. He said they reviewed the curves and where they think they can put
additional signs, to advise the motoring public there are curves ahead, they can
do that. He said they will look at
each curve of the super elevation and the banking and they will make minor
adjustments based on the designed speeds. He
said none stand out of being out of spec.

Commissioner Fleenor opened the
Public Hearing.

Charles Roberts, Creswell,
said at some point the County changed the name of the road but they didnít
tell him about it and he has two addresses. He said the main problem he has is that County employees do not have a
lot of credibility in the county. He
thought they were taking baby steps before the road is modernized. He said if the County does this slowly, the road happens.
He thought the no truck sign should be back up. He said this isnít what the residents want.

There being no one else signed up to
speak, Commissioner Fleenor closed the Public Hearing.

Stewart indicted that he reviewed
the CIP and has never seen anything to do with Hamm Road. He said they donít have the money to do an improvement project.

Morgan indicated they usually do
shoulder rock enhancement and clean the ditches, but they do not reconstruct the
road.

Stewart reiterated that they have a
road that is not legalized. He
indicated it is shown on the map that there is a house placed on the road that
doesnít need to be there. He
wanted to make sure that was all they are doing. He thought this should have been done a long time ago when the road was
constructed but it wasnít.

Jackson stated the aerial photos
show it has been in the same footprint for over 50 years. He said most of the deeds call to a County road and that is what needs to
be established.

Morgan wanted the Board to consider
the road as it is now: rural major
collector, the prime access point between Territorial and Highway 99 or
Creswell. He said if the Board wants them to come back separate from the legalization on the
ups and downs of providing no through truck traffic, they would do it. He said
others needed to be engaged.

Handy wanted a sign that stated: winding
road 1.5 miles.

Morgan said for the signs they are
proposing in the packet, they can (through the County traffic engineer) go out
and put additional signing if they feel it will improve the safety. He said they have to go through the Oregon Department of Transportation
for speed limits. He said they would
have to start advertising this to all people who potentially use the road that
it is a rural major collector and people using this for truck activity. He didnít know why the signs were removed.
He asked the Board that if they donít want truck traffic, then he needs
to be directed to come back with additional information.

MOTION: to approve ORDER
10-8-18-9.

Stewart MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

VOTE: 5-0.

d. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION/In the
Matter of Holding a Public Hearing on the Request to Annex Territory, Identified
as Map 18-05-06-30 Tax Lot 1805, to the Emerald Peopleís Utility District
Under ORS 261.045 and 261.171 and Referring the Matter for a Special Election on
November 2, 2010, General Election (File No. PU EP Ė 2010 ANX-2).

Commissioner Fleenor opened the
Public Hearing.

Tina Batori, Eugene, stated
she is not a customer of EPUD. She
spoke in opposition to the proposed annexation election. She said she listened to the first hearing on the EPUD annexation request
a couple of weeks ago. She
wondered who was registered to vote at the property in question. She knew some of the information was public and she called Elections on
August 4 to ask them. She asked who
was registered to vote at 25226 Strawberry Lane in Veneta and how long they have
been registered there. She said the
answer was Alexander Burton Chappel has been registered to vote at the
Strawberry Lane address since May 19, 2010. She indicated Strawberry Lane is the property that Patricia Chappel
purchased and is the subject of the annexation request. Chappel stated that no one was living at that address.
She asked who was registered to vote at 81311 Ridiculous Road in Veneta. She was told there are five people registered, none who is Patty
Chappel. She said the Ridiculous Road address is where Chappel stated she lived
when she came before the Board and it is part of the EPUD political district. Batori had asked who was registered at 88324 Vineyard Lane in
Veneta. She said the answer is Patricia A. Chappel, who has been registered to
vote there since November 1991. She
noted the Vineyard Lane address is where Patti Chappel lived when she was
elected to the EPUD Board eight years ago. She
asked the Board of Commissioners how
a public utility board can continue to keep a commissioner on the board that is
no longer eligible for the office because she no longer lives in the voting
district. She didnít know how they
could justify spending money on an annexation vote that appears to be an attempt
to get around the election laws.

Doug Schaller, Eugene, stated
he is counsel for EPUD. He didnít
have anything to add other than his take of the statute is that the legislature
has provided a fast track procedure the Peopleís Utility Districts can avail
themselves through a vote of the Board of Directors and that EPUD has sought to
avail itself of that procedure. He
said EPUD has passed a resolution and has presented the resolution to the
commissioners. He said the statutory
procedure is for the Board to call an election. With regard to the Strawberry Lane address, he indicated that Chappel is
remodeling the house and does intend to live there at some point. He indicated the EPUD resolution is to the benefit of the people they
serve and they can make that determination. He indicated that the statute shows the Board of Commissioners have to
call an election.

Fleenor asked what the basis was for
them to legally deny this.

Assistant County Counsel Andy Clark
stated that Chapter 261 generally governs this process. He said it provides three methods to initiate annexation: by a resolution
of the district; by petition of an
affected property owner who want to be annexed into the PUD and by resolution of
the Board of Commissioners. He said
the procedures of Chapter 261 vary. He
said the Board has to find compliance to Chapter 261, that the boundary of the
property to be annexed is properly described. He said both of the criteria have been met.

Sorenson indicated there is one
elector at the residence. He added
that they have to make a decision that there are electors. He said there were no facts that there were electors at the address.

Clark noted that as of August 13
they have not had an elector on the property. He said it is not relevant to the Boardís role.
He said as long as one is registered in the state, if they move they can
register under the new address at any time including election day.

Sorenson asked what discretion they
are trying to exercise.

Clark responded that the Board of
Commissioners has discretion to do what they want. He said under the statute once they find the boundary is accurately
described and that 198.722 has been met, then the Board shall refer the question
onto the election.

Sorenson thought that EPUD was
asking the Board to hold an election and when he reads their resolution, he
doesnít see anything asking the Board to hold an election. He asked if they have to make a request for an election.

Clark didnít think so. He didnít think there was anything that suggests that an electorate
needs to be more than one individual. He
added by the time the election happens, there might be more than one elector. He said that Chapter 261 doesnít require that they request from the
County that they forward it onto an election. He said it is primarily addressed
in 261.141 that states annexation to an existing district may be initiated by
resolution of the Board of Directors of that district. He indicated that it is minimal on what EPUD needs to do in order to
initiate this annexation.

Fleenor asked what happens if they
take no action.

Clark responded that if they take no
action between now and September 2, they have effectively denied the
application.

MOTION: to
consider this request at their next Board meeting next week.

Sorenson MOVED, Handy SECONDED.

Sorenson thought if they had
additional time to consider this they are still actively considering this.

Handy wanted additional items for
next week. He commented that it
didnít make common sense. He
wanted other properties included in this request.

Stewart agreed with comments that
have been made. He didnít think
this was a proper thing to do, to bring a property into a district for an EPUD
board member. He asked for the
minutes of EPUD because testimony led him to believe that this was a trial to
see how they bring in the other 540 properties. He indicated the minutes clearly state that if someone wants to serve and
they are not outside the boundary, but in the district, that they have a right
to file to bring a piece of property into the district. He commented that information didnít sound like it was pertinent to
what they are supposed to be dealing with. He
thought this should be an example of what they give to Alex Cuyler for the state
legislature to find out if this was an unintended consequence of what this law
was passed for. He said if that is
the direction that is taken, he wants the Board to ask the legislature to
discuss this during the next legislative session.

Clarkís understanding of part of
the issue with EPUD and the timing of this annexation is they recognize that
there are a number of properties in the service area but not in the political
boundary of the district. He said
the intent is to square that up but the districtis waiting for the census numbers to come back. He asked if the intent is to bring this back and to keep the record open.

Sorenson wanted to keep the record
open.

Clark said the hearing is not
statutorily required but the omission by the statute is odd and given this
Boardís interest, they have set it for a hearing. He stated the Board has to decide whether to refer this to Elections
regardless if it set for a hearing or not.

Fleenor suggested for EPUD to pass
another resolution for next week that says they want the Board of Commissioners
to refer this for an election. He
thought they could submit this to Elections without the Board having to be in
the middle.

Clark said his interpretation of the
statute is the Board of Commissioners has to refer the matter for an election.

Dwyer stated that if he made a
motion, it would have been to postpone this indefinitely.

Fleenor asked why they would be
bringing this back if there is no substantive change. He supported Dwyerís position that if there is not something different
then they will be back where they started. He
wanted to give EPUD the opportunity to present the Board with another resolution
that might allow them a motion to be made.

Sorenson didnít think they have
met the burden of this statute. He
wanted to hold this over for one week.

VOTE: 4-1 (Dwyer dissenting).

13. PUBLIC WORKS

a. THIRD READING AND
DISCUSSION/Ordinance PA 1272/In the Matter of Amending the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) to Adjust
the Planning Period from Year 2015 to Year 2027, to Remove Completed Projects
from the Project Lists, to make Related Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan , and Adopting a Severability Clause. (NBA &
PM 6/17/2010 & 7/7/10).

Celia Barry, Public Works, recalled
that there was a joint elected officials meeting on June 17 and at that meeting
Handy submitted written comments into the record and then the Public Hearing was
closed. She added the record was
left open for staff responses. She
said the Board of Commissioners moved to approve a Second Reading on July 7 and
in that meeting, staff provided a response to the comments submitted by Handy
and informed the Board of the Springfield City Councilís vote on the
ordinance. She reported there was
unanimous approval of what was
approved by the joint elected officials at the June 17 meeting. She indicated the Board of Commissioners wanted to keep the record open
to see what the city of Eugene did in their action. She noted on August 9 the Eugene City Council passed an amended
ordinance. She said language that is
listed in TransPlan for the West Eugene Parkway is no longer funded and is not
listed in the programming document, the Regional Transportation Plan. She said the West Eugene Parkway may not be relied upon to support new
development. She said there were
three clauses in the amendment that the city of Eugene passed. She noted the first clause was that Sections 1 through 3 of the Eugene
Ordinance wonít be effective unless both Springfield and Lane County adopt an
identical amendment. She added it
adds a new ordinance amendment Section 7 that adds a footnote to TransPlan explaining there is no funding for
the West Eugene Parkway so it canít be relied upon for any new proposed development as a transportation facility providing
adequately for transportation. She
noted the third clause adds a new ordinance Section 8 that states the new
Section 7 will only be effective if Lane County adopts an identical amendment. She indicated it was a gray area in whether it is a substantive change.
She said if the Board wants to adopt the amendment, to hold a Fourth
Reading.

Handy wanted another work session to
bring this back, looking at the Metro Plan and TransPlan.

Barry said if they want a work
session on the City Transportation System Plan, and the city of Springfield
Comprehensive Plan, that she canít staff it because they are city issues.

Handy said DLCD asked the local
jurisdictions to come back with their planned strategy in firming the language. He wanted a work session to debrief on what the various jurisdictions and
planners are suggesting about how they are going to deal with a TransPlan that
is not meeting their needs and is
being looked at for some revisions and updates. He wanted more information on how the jurisdictions are going to respond
to DLCD. He wanted a comprehensive
discussion including the impacts of what happened at DLCD and how it might
impact their looking at their Transplan and Metro Plan revisions and to have a
more comprehensive work session.

Barry did not make that
recommendation. She stated the
report back to LCDC is to occur in March 2011 and in the last supplement she
provided, she gave a calendar that gave all the planning efforts going on at MPC.
She said they are developing materials for the September meeting for
getting discussion around the multiple jurisdictions and what Eugene and
Springfield are doing with transportation systems plan to address regional type
of issues. She said those
discussions are going on at MPC. She
is not making a recommendation that they rehash all that information and create
another work session. She indicated
by passing this ordinance it will allow them to advance to the next step to get
closer to meeting the deadlines.

Handy heard the city of Eugene
responded to their invitation about long term plans and interest. He noted at the agenda team they noted that Mr. Whitman,
head of DLCD will be coming down to have a work session with the Board and other cities.
He
recommended the order they do this in is to have their session first with Mr.
Whitman and DLCD on the UGB and to schedule a work session with the city of
Eugene planners who asked to have a
work session like the one with the city of Springfield. He wanted to bring this back after they had those two work session.

Barry responded that if that is the
direction the Board takes, they will need to do another legal notice.

MOTION: to approve a Third
Reading and Setting a Fourth Reading and Discussion on October 20 at 1:30 p.m. for Ordinance PA 1272.

Handy MOVED.

Barry indicated the Public Hearing
is closed and the record will remain open. She
noted these are housekeeping changes and getting this done will allow them to
move into the other areas that were approved by the joint elected officials on
the work program that includes the analysis of land use that is being done and
updating TSPís. She said those
items will be when the Board can have a more substantive discussion about where
they are going forward with greenhouse gas and climate change.

Vorhes asked if the motion is
intending to include the change the Eugene City Council approved, recognizing if
the idea is to fold amendments into this, it would entail some potential for
needing to revisit the actions that Eugene and Springfield have taken on these
housekeeping amendments. He added if
they are not intending to change the ordinance on these items, then putting it
off and doing something later that might adopt these changes, might not
necessitate any additional action by
Springfield or Eugene. He asked if
the Board intends the new section action the Eugene City Council approved on
August 9.

Fleenor said if they are holding
this over, they should include the three different revisions the city of Eugene
has passed. He asked the maker of
the motion having those put into the ordinance so they donít have another
requirement of a 13 day period.

Handy said if it simplifies things,
they could consider it all at once when they have their overall comprehensive
discussion. He was hesitant to send
the message that by including it they
are signaling they want to endorse it. He
said he might have a different view if they are really housekeeping amendments.

Dwyer SECONDED.

Handy indicated the amendments from
the city of Eugene are included in the motion. He added the record will be kept open.

VOTE: 5-0.

14. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS
192.660

None.

15. OTHER BUSINESS

None.

There being no further business,
Commissioner Fleenor adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m.